No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
- Status
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Lethal force in the defense of innocent people is always justified.
I meant a legal case or ethic. In other words, if the situation is a certain way in what is being evaluated, one might say that the death penalty is not justified in that specific case.
Your answer sounds like a combination of the death penalty and not the death penalty in that you are thinking situational and bypassing the courts. Is there precedent in a court for cases like this or might you be found guilty of murder?
It seems that we should protect the innocent. I am not sure how to do this. I myself do not know if I have the right to bear arms the same as everyone else, though I am a citizen and have not done anything whereby this right should be taken away as far as I can tell. I may have had this right restored, but I don't think anyone has told me that this is the case. Further, I may be without using guns in protecting people partly because I don't seek to own one right now. So even though we should all protect the innocent and a situation might come up where I would be called upon to do this, I would be doing so without a gun.
What kind of lethal force do you mean? What types of lethal force are justified in your opinion?
I take it that innocent people means that there is an attacker.
bibleverse2
New member
Romans 13:3 . . . [civil] rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
This means that God permits capital punishment by civil authorities. For to execute wrath against an evildoer with a sword would mean to kill the evildoer.
This does not require that everything that a government does is moral or right. For innocent people are sometimes killed by police by mistake, for example, if the police think that a person is pointing a gun at them, when in fact he is just holding a cell phone.
And even when people are tried and found guilty of a capital crime, and have sat on death row for many years, new evidence can come to light which proves that in fact they are innocent. There is even a group of lawyers who run "The Innocence Project", which repeatedly has been able to prove that some innocent people are sitting on death row. And it gets these people set free.
This is one of the biggest problems with the death penalty: Innocent people can be executed because they get railroaded through the justice system by overzealous police officers, detectives, special agents, district attorneys, prosecutors, judges, magistrates, grand juries, and petit juries, who are all just champing at the bit to quickly solve a horrible, capital crime, and see that the ultimate punishment is meted out.
So the very fact that a government can make mistakes is one very good reason for it to never employ the death penalty, even though it has the God-given right to do so (Romans 13:4).
And when Christians are the government, for example, if they are sitting on a jury for a capital crime, and must decide whether or not to vote for the death penalty, they should not vote for it. For as Christians, they should extend God's mercy to the criminal, instead of God's wrath, even if the criminal legally deserves death. Christians should follow Jesus Christ's example in John 8:3-11 in dealing with people worthy of death. For if Christians reject such mercy, and are instead eager to "mete out some justice!", then they should subsequently expect God to mete out His own justice toward them for their own sins, instead of His mercy (Matthew 7:1-2, Matthew 6:14-15). Christians must never forget that they were all under God's eternal-death penalty before He had mercy on them (Romans 6:23). They should always show all other people the same mercy which God has shown them (Ephesians 4:32).
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Do you mean by this, wrt the severity of the crime in question? Meaning, that if the crime is not severe, that the death penalty in such a case is not justified?
Perhaps I should elaborate on what I mean by "the defense of innocent people," I do not mean the defense of innocent people against having less severe crimes committed against them, such as petty theft of change off their dresser, I mean 'life and limb' kind of danger---it is always justified to employ lethal force to defend innocent people against the real threat of loss of life and /or limb. Not necessarily loss of money.
Do you mean if an innocent person kills a murderer /rapist /etc. in defense of either themselves or of other innocent people? There are laws that defend such an innocent person from prosecution and from civil suit in some states.
Ideally perhaps, in only one sense (and not in all others), it would be nice if there were police literally everywhere, and nobody needed to worry about bearing arms in their own, or in their neighbors' and families' defense against murderers and rapists and wild animals and people 'off their meds.' But that is not what we have, nor is it what we want, I don't think.
If police were everywhere, and when police had to use lethal force against someone in defense of either themselves or of innocent people, then the matter would be handled by the police, and no civilian would ever have to concern themselves with legal consequences for protecting others or themselves with lethal force.
If innocent people can be protected through the incarceration of murderers, rapists, etc., then I can support forbidding the death penalty, but through criminal networking, it is possible for an incarcerated felon to remain a real threat to life and limb of innocent people outside of prison, so for that case, I support retaining the death penalty as a last resort. And this is the same justification for civilians to kill in defense of innocent people, right in the moment of the crime committed, and not weeks, months, and years later.
I am. In all cases where innocent people are murdered, raped, etc., they would have been better served if they were armed with 'standard issue' military weaponry. In most cases they wouldn't even had been a target in the first place, and in other cases they at least would have had a 'puncher's chance' against their enemy. But most victims of murder and rape are unarmed. And when there are other innocent people around who can or could help, they too are usually unarmed. It's fundamentally unjust to deny a victim of a murderer /rapist /etc. the ability to carry 'standard issue' military weaponry. And we don't know who will become such a victim, but we do know one thing about them already; they are all innocent, and they all possess the inalienable right to not be murdered, and to not be raped; and so they also possess the inalienable right to bear arms.
And you would do the best that you can, as any good person would. And if you were carrying a gun, you would have options that you do not have without a gun. For example, there are many crimes that are stopped without anybody getting shot. Just training a gun on a criminal can oftentimes make him rethink what they're doing, and surrender peacefully. Whereas a knife or other melee weapon couldn't threaten them so much as a gun.
And if you do ever pursue gun ownership, along with the NRA's enshrined safety rules (e.g. to always treat every gun as if it's loaded, even when you know that it is not), keep in mind that guns are just like small artillery pieces, and artillery works by bombarding a threat with ammunition until the threat is extinguished, and that is how you should think about using your gun in defense of innocent people, if ever you find yourself able to help innocent people in need of defense.
I'm not trying to be mysterious. For civilians, I'm talking about shooting murderers /rapists, so long as they pose a credible threat to innocent people's life and limb. For the criminal justice system, the current modern guidelines for what constitutes not cruel and not unusual forms of killing is what I mean.
And sometimes as noted, the attacker can be a wild or diseased animal, or a human who through concussion or some other mental injury /disability, nonetheless poses a credible threat to the life and limb of innocent people. Attackers are not always criminals, but our right to life persists even when the threat posed to it is not doing so deliberately.
U.S. states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than those with it .
Most of the world's nations have abolished the death penalty . It's about time the U.S . did this .
It's not a deterrent to murder and has never been one .
Every European country abolished it long ago and their murder rates don't even come remotely close to those in America . There's also the risk of executing innocent people . In recent years , numerous people in U.S. prisons for murder have been exonerated through DNA evidence . Some of these people had been languishing in prison for many years .
It costs less to put a murderer in jail for life than to execute one . The constant appeals waste an enormous amount of money . And life in prison is no picnic .
Most of the world's nations have abolished the death penalty . It's about time the U.S . did this .
It's not a deterrent to murder and has never been one .
Every European country abolished it long ago and their murder rates don't even come remotely close to those in America . There's also the risk of executing innocent people . In recent years , numerous people in U.S. prisons for murder have been exonerated through DNA evidence . Some of these people had been languishing in prison for many years .
It costs less to put a murderer in jail for life than to execute one . The constant appeals waste an enormous amount of money . And life in prison is no picnic .
Last edited:
It deters murderers from murdering again.
I value your opinion. Do you believe that the Law has been abolished? If not, would you still forgive? If so, perhaps no death penalty should stand. Just thinking. I encourage you and thank you. I have been for the death penalty, as I believe the Law has not been abolished. I believe people can repent of their sin, but that it may not keep them from the death penalty. You have a lot of good points in your post.
Would it be God?
Matthew 10:28 NASB - 28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Why the eternal Son and why the way that you say?
It might not be a crime. A factor. Difficult to argue based on a crime. Is theft a crime? I know that it is against God's Law to steal.
I think I understand you. It might not be justified to take their life. Especially if the Law has been abolished.
Murder is a crime worthy of death. Rape may not be. And it may depend. I started a thread for this. On top of this is if the Law has been abolished, which is part of why it is so difficult for me.
I think I understand what you have said here.
Okay. I am following your argument, though I may not use lethal force.
Following.
What is retaining the death penalty as a last resort?
I don't know why I am think this, but wouldn't calling the police in these types of situation be the thing to do? Maybe you don't have a phone and think you need to act? Rather than take matters into your own hands. What is your rationale?
A death penalty years later may not be a problem as compared with taking their life in the moment.
Would to bear arms be to protect oneself in regard to crime or in regard to a foreign military? What is the militia in relation to this? Is the right to bear arms connected with the militia or a militia for example? When did the United States of America first have a military?
Interesting thoughts about different weapons and what they can do. Better no weapon?
That is a lot to think about. I am a bit overwhelmed.
I do not believe myself to be a threat. I say this because I am thinking about switching to an oral medication. People say that it helps me think. But the diagnosis was not favorable. People who think those with meds don't have rights are wrong. But I don't know if I want or if I would want a gun anyway. I am thinking about guns but without using them. That is what my conversation with you amounts to. I wouldn't want you to use lethal force when it does not make sense, in terms of what God wants you to be doing.
If just judgment is what we want, maybe the death penalty as prescribed by law, if the Law has not been abolished. It should be according to the Torah unless forgiveness in Jesus either abolishes the Law or frees one who otherwise would have to die death as the penalty or punishment for what they have done.
As for lower murder rates, is it the presence of the death penalty or is it fewer guns? Just thinking about statistics and how they work.
Thanks for your contribution!
What about a known punishment preventing someone from becoming a murderer to begin with?
And Yah Shua came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me".
"I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades".
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I don't support it without 100% proof of guilt and then only for murder, rape, child molestation, certainly not for infidelity or being gay. In addition, those convicted of the first three where there's still any slight room for doubt should be sentenced to life in maximum security prison.
glassjester
Well-known member
What good does it accomplish, even if with 100% proof of guilt?
Even death apart from the death penalty.
Is there such a thing as a lesser crime?
There are crimes that warrant the death penalty according to your view.
What about crimes that you do not view as as heinous? A lesser punishment? Or, no punishment at all?
Certainly the innocent should not be proven guilty.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
correlation and causation
look it up
it's the only way to guarantee that a murderer won't murder again
how many of them have a significant population of young negro males murdering other young negro males?
and there's the risk of imprisoning innocent people
Huh? I do not even know what you just said.
Prison is not just if the penalty should have been death. And I do not know if the Law has been abolished. The innocent should not be put behind bars or executed.
- Status